4 ms·

There is no similarity between that and religion. Religion by definition is an unjustified belief in supernatural - faith. There is no reason or logical backing

by nugga 11y ago

There is no similarity between that and religion. Religion by definition is an unjustified belief in supernatural - faith. There is no reason or logical backing for it. It is a malfunction of your reasoning system - perhaps heavy cognitive dissonance.

sbov 11y ago
Sounds like love. Or friendship.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
lotharbot 11y ago
GP said: "assuming that [others] are motivated solely by stupidity." You said: "by definition is an unjustified belief ... no reason or logical backing ... malfunction of your reasoning system" exactly proving the point. You've made a blanket statement regarding anyone who has come to a different conclusion from you regarding the supernatural. It must be stupidity! It can't possibly be justified, or even clear the bar of not-totally-irrational! There's no room to even try to have a conversation, because "by definition" people on the other side are stupid.
- nugga 11y ago
  No not stupid. I see religion more like a disease. Not many turn religious as adults. 99.99% have it passed down by their parents and their extended family and the culture they live in. They live life without questioning it and can't even see past it. Some people just are lucky to not have it imposed on them or wake up later in their life.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    > "They live life without questioning it and can't even see past it" I have met very few people like this. And, again, you are making the OP's point. You have it all figured it out -- you know how wrong everyone who disagrees with you is. Whether you call it "stupid" or "a disease" or "irrational", the point is that you're not attempting to learn from them or understand them, you're simply being dismissive of everyone who concludes differently from you.
    - nugga 11y ago
      Maybe I misunderstand the OP's point but I specifically took issue to this very topic, at the expense of my karma apparently, because religion is differente. Religion is 'solved' in the sense that they are man made belief systems, all which proclaim to be true, and most holding mutually exclusive claims between each other. It is not debatable in a way left-right politics and their backers' stances and reasonings are. I'm not hating on them because it is not their fault. I feel for those trapped, I really do. Given time societies turn (and have already turned in large parts) away from it through education and the undrstanding of the universe and the human condition via scientific method. There is no middle ground in this specific instance. You would not entertain an alchemist or an astrologist either. Religion will soon join them in that regard in the collective consciousness.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > You would not entertain an alchemist or an astrologist either. Religion will soon join them in that regard in the collective consciousness. And why do you think people won't entertain an alchemist or an astrologist? Why do you think religion will become similar to those disciplines? It's not because people are getting smarter. It's because alchemy is not popular, science is! Most people don't understand a thing about either, but they have a firm opinion. That's just blind faith, the only thing that changes over the centuries is the object of faith. It's completely orthogonal to the discussion about which is right and which is wrong. Most people don't know and don't care, as long as they believe the same thing their peers do, so I wouldn't be quick to judge one group, because the other is not smarter, it just sticks to the currently popular belief.
      - lotharbot 11y ago
        keep in mind that the article was about people who are not domain experts, seeing things they don't think make sense within a domain, and deciding those things are stupid prior to gaining proper understanding. I feel fairly confident not entertaining someone who claims to be able to turn a lead brick into gold in their living room, because I know enough about physics and chemistry to understand the energy difference between lead and gold. But I would entertain someone who had nuclear-lab-grade equipment who claimed to be able to convert a small number of atoms. They might actually be full of crap, but my domain knowledge is not specific enough to be able to say. When it comes to religion, I think the same thing with non-experts happens, and you're doing it. You claim to know all religious are "man made belief systems", "unjustified", with "no logical backing" -- claims that a domain expert can make regarding perhaps a few religions they're intimately familiar with, but not that anyone can actually make for all religions. How many religions have you studied deeply enough to really be able to make that claim? If Christianity is on your list, have you ever read the Didache, or De Principiis? If Mormonism is on your list, do you know about the Seer Stone or Elijah Abel? If Judaism is on your list, are you familiar with the Midrash or Siddur? These aren't particularly obscure references; they're things anyone well-enough versed in any of these religions to say "it's bogus because..." should know about. If you don't know about those things, but you're sure each of those religions are "man-made", "unjustified", with "no logical backing", you should consider where your certainty comes from and how certain it really is.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > 99.99% have it passed down by their parents and their extended family and the culture they live in. They live life without questioning it and can't even see past it. I was raised in a religion that emphasizes understanding the belief system and arguments for it (the focus on valuing the truth was what caused me to ultimately leave, btw.). So I do have first-hand experience of what it means to believe in something for perfectly good reason with strong, consistent arguments. And I have to tell you, while most religious people probably believe for reasons like you just described, I've seen and talked to many self-proclaimed atheists and many refuse to believe for exactly the same reasons - they were raised as atheists. Or they discovered that atheism is what cool people do, or didn't want to stand out from the crowd. People who don't believe in supernatural aren't inherently smarter than those who do. For many (I suspect most) of them, atheism is a blind faith, the same way Christianity is for their parents.
  - rokhayakebe 11y ago
    Honestly friend you know very little on the subject of religion if you say 99.99% live without questioning. But let s just say that some of the greatest philosophers were also believers of some sort of diety. As well as some of the greatest scientists.
tempestn 11y ago
Here's the thing. Both with the religion argument and in general: even if you're right, your logic is unassailable, and the other person is provably wrong, you will still benefit from not assuming stupidity/broken thinking/etc, and instead seeking to understand the other person's position as thoroughly as possible. At one extreme, you may discover a flaw in your reasoning. Even if not, you may find that while not entirely sound, there are valuable aspects to the other person's point of view, which can make your world-view more nuanced. Or perhaps you will simply confirm your initial perspective... but even then, you're much more likely to inspire the other person to think on the subject than if you come in with the perspective that they're provably wrong (and perhaps a bit pitiable for it). By seeking to really understand someone, you inspire them to do the same for you.

by nugga 11y ago

sbov 11y ago

Sounds like love. Or friendship.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

lotharbot 11y ago

GP said: "assuming that [others] are motivated solely by stupidity." You said: "by definition is an unjustified belief ... no reason or logical backing ... malfunction of your reasoning system" exactly proving the point. You've made a blanket statement regarding anyone who has come to a different conclusion from you regarding the supernatural. It must be stupidity! It can't possibly be justified, or even clear the bar of not-totally-irrational! There's no room to even try to have a conversation, because "by definition" people on the other side are stupid.

nugga 11y ago
No not stupid. I see religion more like a disease. Not many turn religious as adults. 99.99% have it passed down by their parents and their extended family and the culture they live in. They live life without questioning it and can't even see past it. Some people just are lucky to not have it imposed on them or wake up later in their life.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  > "They live life without questioning it and can't even see past it" I have met very few people like this. And, again, you are making the OP's point. You have it all figured it out -- you know how wrong everyone who disagrees with you is. Whether you call it "stupid" or "a disease" or "irrational", the point is that you're not attempting to learn from them or understand them, you're simply being dismissive of everyone who concludes differently from you.
  - nugga 11y ago
    Maybe I misunderstand the OP's point but I specifically took issue to this very topic, at the expense of my karma apparently, because religion is differente. Religion is 'solved' in the sense that they are man made belief systems, all which proclaim to be true, and most holding mutually exclusive claims between each other. It is not debatable in a way left-right politics and their backers' stances and reasonings are. I'm not hating on them because it is not their fault. I feel for those trapped, I really do. Given time societies turn (and have already turned in large parts) away from it through education and the undrstanding of the universe and the human condition via scientific method. There is no middle ground in this specific instance. You would not entertain an alchemist or an astrologist either. Religion will soon join them in that regard in the collective consciousness.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > You would not entertain an alchemist or an astrologist either. Religion will soon join them in that regard in the collective consciousness. And why do you think people won't entertain an alchemist or an astrologist? Why do you think religion will become similar to those disciplines? It's not because people are getting smarter. It's because alchemy is not popular, science is! Most people don't understand a thing about either, but they have a firm opinion. That's just blind faith, the only thing that changes over the centuries is the object of faith. It's completely orthogonal to the discussion about which is right and which is wrong. Most people don't know and don't care, as long as they believe the same thing their peers do, so I wouldn't be quick to judge one group, because the other is not smarter, it just sticks to the currently popular belief.
    - lotharbot 11y ago
      keep in mind that the article was about people who are not domain experts, seeing things they don't think make sense within a domain, and deciding those things are stupid prior to gaining proper understanding. I feel fairly confident not entertaining someone who claims to be able to turn a lead brick into gold in their living room, because I know enough about physics and chemistry to understand the energy difference between lead and gold. But I would entertain someone who had nuclear-lab-grade equipment who claimed to be able to convert a small number of atoms. They might actually be full of crap, but my domain knowledge is not specific enough to be able to say. When it comes to religion, I think the same thing with non-experts happens, and you're doing it. You claim to know all religious are "man made belief systems", "unjustified", with "no logical backing" -- claims that a domain expert can make regarding perhaps a few religions they're intimately familiar with, but not that anyone can actually make for all religions. How many religions have you studied deeply enough to really be able to make that claim? If Christianity is on your list, have you ever read the Didache, or De Principiis? If Mormonism is on your list, do you know about the Seer Stone or Elijah Abel? If Judaism is on your list, are you familiar with the Midrash or Siddur? These aren't particularly obscure references; they're things anyone well-enough versed in any of these religions to say "it's bogus because..." should know about. If you don't know about those things, but you're sure each of those religions are "man-made", "unjustified", with "no logical backing", you should consider where your certainty comes from and how certain it really is.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > 99.99% have it passed down by their parents and their extended family and the culture they live in. They live life without questioning it and can't even see past it. I was raised in a religion that emphasizes understanding the belief system and arguments for it (the focus on valuing the truth was what caused me to ultimately leave, btw.). So I do have first-hand experience of what it means to believe in something for perfectly good reason with strong, consistent arguments. And I have to tell you, while most religious people probably believe for reasons like you just described, I've seen and talked to many self-proclaimed atheists and many refuse to believe for exactly the same reasons - they were raised as atheists. Or they discovered that atheism is what cool people do, or didn't want to stand out from the crowd. People who don't believe in supernatural aren't inherently smarter than those who do. For many (I suspect most) of them, atheism is a blind faith, the same way Christianity is for their parents.
- rokhayakebe 11y ago
  Honestly friend you know very little on the subject of religion if you say 99.99% live without questioning. But let s just say that some of the greatest philosophers were also believers of some sort of diety. As well as some of the greatest scientists.

tempestn 11y ago

Here's the thing. Both with the religion argument and in general: even if you're right, your logic is unassailable, and the other person is provably wrong, you will still benefit from not assuming stupidity/broken thinking/etc, and instead seeking to understand the other person's position as thoroughly as possible. At one extreme, you may discover a flaw in your reasoning. Even if not, you may find that while not entirely sound, there are valuable aspects to the other person's point of view, which can make your world-view more nuanced. Or perhaps you will simply confirm your initial perspective... but even then, you're much more likely to inspire the other person to think on the subject than if you come in with the perspective that they're provably wrong (and perhaps a bit pitiable for it). By seeking to really understand someone, you inspire them to do the same for you.